Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

Thumpalumpacus Wrote:You cannot reason fiction into reality. The world doesn't care about your words. What doesn't exist will not *poof* into existence if you utter the right words in the right order ... your fetish with philosophy notwithstanding.

...thereby dismissing an entire branch of human inquiry. I suggest you call your local University and advise them to shut down their Philosophy Department. See how they feel about that suggestion.  

Here's how the thread has played out thus far:

"Here is my straw man refutation of the 5W."
"Well, even if my refutation doesn't apply someone sometime did so I don't need to."
"Well even if I cannot produce a valid refutation it doesn't matter. All propositions require empirical verification (except this one.)"
"Philosophy is bullshit."

Pointing out a limitation of philosophy is not the same thing as calling it bullshit. Can you give an example of something besides God that philosophy can prove to exist without evidence?

(November 23, 2016 at 1:39 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

Neo-Scholastic Wrote:...thereby dismissing an entire branch of human inquiry. I suggest you call your local University and advise them to shut down their Philosophy Department. See how they feel about that suggestion.  

Here's how the thread has played out thus far:

"Here is my straw man refutation of the 5W."
"Well, even if my refutation doesn't apply someone sometime did so I don't need to."
"Well even if I cannot produce a valid refutation it doesn't matter. All propositions require empirical verification (except this one.)"
"Philosophy is bullshit."

Pointing out a limitation of philosophy is not the same thing as calling it bullshit. Can you give an example of something besides God that philosophy can prove to exist without evidence?

(November 22, 2016 at 6:34 pm)Jesster Wrote:

(November 22, 2016 at 6:28 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: Aquinas' arguments are all extremely easy to refute. They're all baseless premises and/or non-sequiturs. They're all either unsound or not even valid.

But he really wants them to be valid. You can't argue with that!

Don't have to argue with Non-sequiturs

(November 23, 2016 at 1:39 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

Neo-Scholastic Wrote:...thereby dismissing an entire branch of human inquiry. I suggest you call your local University and advise them to shut down their Philosophy Department. See how they feel about that suggestion.  

Here's how the thread has played out thus far:

"Here is my straw man refutation of the 5W."
"Well, even if my refutation doesn't apply someone sometime did so I don't need to."
"Well even if I cannot produce a valid refutation it doesn't matter. All propositions require empirical verification (except this one.)"
"Philosophy is bullshit."

Pointing out a limitation of philosophy is not the same thing as calling it bullshit. Can you give an example of something besides God that philosophy can prove to exist without evidence?

God isn't an exception to the unprovability of the existence of entities via a priori logic.

(November 23, 2016 at 5:12 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote:

(November 22, 2016 at 6:34 pm)Jesster Wrote: But he really wants them to be valid. You can't argue with that!

Don't have to argue with Non-sequiturs

I can argue with non-sequiturs! Observe:

There is a kitten lying in my lap playing with his tail. Checkmate, Aquinas!

Well what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, as Hitchens said...

In the same regard: What can be asserted with a non-sequitur can be dismissed with a non-sequitur

(November 23, 2016 at 1:21 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(November 23, 2016 at 12:46 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: You cannot reason fiction into reality. The world doesn't care about your words. What doesn't exist will not *poof* into existence if you utter the right words in the right order ... your fetish with philosophy notwithstanding.

...thereby dismissing an entire branch of human inquiry. I suggest you call your local University and advise them to shut down their Philosophy Department. See how they feel about that suggestion.  

Hey, quit sticking words in my mouth and try some honest discussion for a change, no?

I didn't say that philosophy was useless or negative. What I said was that you have a fetish with it. In the context of this discussion, that means that you think a lot of verbiage can make your god real -- in my view. Now, if I'm wrong, I'm happy to admit as much, but let's face it: you retreat into philosophy and make a regular practice of trying to reason your god into existence.

In short, with this strawman, you're trying to avoid actually addressing my point in favor of a shallow rhetorical flourish. Color me underwhelmed.

It's nice you have an education. It's a goddamned shame they didn't teach you how to deal with dissenting points in an honest manner.

(November 23, 2016 at 5:17 pm)Gemini Wrote: There is a kitten lying in my lap playing with his tail. Checkmate, Aquinas!

Hmmm... if he is keeping still but his tail is waving, would that make him... AN UNMOVED MOVER?

(November 23, 2016 at 5:57 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(November 23, 2016 at 1:21 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: ...thereby dismissing an entire branch of human inquiry. I suggest you call your local University and advise them to shut down their Philosophy Department. See how they feel about that suggestion.  

... What I said was that you have a fetish with it.

Well, I do keep a copy of the Summa in the bathroom. One hand on Aquinas, the other on...excuse me me I have to go...

(November 23, 2016 at 6:09 pm)Tonus Wrote:

(November 23, 2016 at 5:17 pm)Gemini Wrote: There is a kitten lying in my lap playing with his tail. Checkmate, Aquinas!

Hmmm... if he is keeping still but his tail is waving, would that make him... AN UNMOVED MOVER?

That's fucking awesome